Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Howard Marks says, in an apparent effort to suggest that drug taking leads to a heightening of one's mental powers, "We've had Francis Crick for example, who discovered, or invented, DNA, depending on one's view of the existence of theoretical entities, as a result of taking acid". Franis Crick, along with James Watson, conducted his Nobel Prize-winning work on DNA in the early 1950s. However, Crick did not take LSD until the late 1960s. (As an aside, in spite of what Howard Marks said, Crick and Watson did not discover DNA, only its structure. DNA was first isolated in the 19th century.)

According to Crick biographer Matt Ridley (in a quote which can be found online) "I am frequently asked for my opinion on the speculation that Francis Crick was on LSD when he discovered the double helix; or that he was involved with a man named Dick Kemp in the manufacture of LSD. [...] Both stories are wrong. The true story, which I was told directly by Crick's widow and by the man who (as his widow confirms) first supplied the Cricks with LSD, is much less sensational. Crick was given (not sold) LSD on several occasions from 1967 onwards by Henry Todd, who met the Cricks through his girlfriend."

Interestingly, Ridley attributes the myth of Crick carrying out his work on DNA under the influence of LSD to a story in the Mail On Sunday, of all places, being written by Alun Rees upon Crick's death eight years ago.

Kary Mullis, awarded the 1993 Nobel Prize in chemistry for the invention of the polymerase chain reaction, did attribute his ability to make his discovery to his earlier experimentation with LSD, but his work is less well known. I think, however, that whenever a brilliant person has a history of drug use, they are brilliant in spite of their drug use and not because of it.

Marks also referred to the American physicist Richard Feynman as a "heavy stoner" (he does this, strangely, in the present tense, despite the fact that Feynman has been dead for twenty-five years). However, I understand that Feynman only briefly used drugs while experimenting with sensory deprivation. Feyman is recorded to have said, in the popular book Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!, "You see, I get such fun out of thinking that I don't want to destroy this most pleasant machine that makes life such a big kick. It's the same reason that, later on, I was reluctant to try experiments with LSD in spite of my curiosity about hallucinations."

Paul P - there is no known overdose (or at least no practically achievable overdose) of cannabis. You're right, though, to ask whether the dangerousness of cannabis (or any drug for that matter) is the crux of the issue. Better, surely, to ask how best to mitigate whatever dangers it may have. The 'does cannabis cause schizophrenia?' debate is interesting, but something of a red herring in my view.

I am surprised that Peter Hitchens has not commentated yet on the legalisation of cannabis in Washington and other American states.This seems a real game changer and surely Britain which is very much a cultural colony of the USA will not be far behind.

Is cannabis a dangerous drug? Is this the crux of the issue? Cannabis is prescribed as a medicine and so there must be pharmacological reports. Where are the reports on which the government bases its licencing of cannabis for medical use? Can we all read them? Are they available on the Internet?

Understood is the fact that unrestrained recreational use of any medical drug will likely be detrimental, and possibly will kill you. All prescription drugs carry the usual warnings about exceeding dosages prescribed by doctors. The many overdose deaths from such excesses are well known. So even if cannabis is a worthy prescription drug, excessive use must be assumed to be detrimental.

What I would very much like to see are credible pharmacological reports. My personal view on this, as it happens, is that one has to be a complete nutcase to inhale anything other than fresh air into an organ vital for a long and heathy life. Why anyone would want to compromise a long and healthy life in exchange for some transient, mildly euphoric experience is quite beyond me. What's so wrong with a good book?

What I found most astounding was the fact that nearly all the audience questions were directed to Peter Hitchens. Regular readers of this blog will be well rehearsed in the arguments against legalisation of drugs but it seemed that for many in the Bristol audience it was the first time they'd heard a decent argument against the idea. More's the pity that more people out there in the general public dont get to see more of this side of the debate.

A very interesting debate so far; it's odd that Howard Marks couldn't seem to grasp the simple point you were making about children who are diagnosed with dyslexia not being tested using MRI scanners. I do find it plausible that MRI could be used to detect the condition, but that's irrelevant given that the vast majority of children who are said to have dyslexia are not diagnosed in this way.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.